Being raised as a paedocommunionist (that means our kids get to eat Jesus, too), I have always been amazed by how passionately credocommunionists (that means their kids don't get to eat Jesus until they articulate a "credible" profession of faith) dislike the practice. I would think that they could look at paedocommunion and at least respect it as an attempt to live out Covenant Theology in a consistent way. Instead, paedocommunionists have been widely viewed as being on the fringe of the fringe (yes, that far) of Reformed Theology. I like to think that I have been able to agree-to-disagree in an amicable way with my credocommunionist friends. However, I will admit that being discounted as "unconfessional" (trust me, I've been called worse) has made many paedocommunionists (you'd have to ask my friends whether or not that applies to me) act in a manner that lacks Christian grace.
So, the question remains, is paedocommunion a view held by not-really-that-Reformed-people who are unconfessional (and sort of weird)? Or, is it an Orthodox view held by Reformed brethren who are seeking to practice the Covenant consistently (okay, we are sort of weird)?
The battleground of the issue is undoubtedly 1 Corinthians 11:17ff. If you're not familiar with it, go over to biblehub and catch up. Assuming you've done that, let's proceed. So, Paul says that those who eat in an unworthy manner will bring guilt upon themselves. On this we agree. Specifically he says that those who do so will be "guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." What does that mean? Well, many Presbyterians have taken this to mean that we will be profaning the sacrament by eating of it without the proper mindset or faith. I don't think that is really what Paul means, though.
Paul, always sure to apply the truths he reveals, offers a remedy to the unworthy partaking. What is that remedy? Self-examination or self-judging. Presbyterians have generally understood this to mean one of two things (or both). Firstly, some take this to mean that we are supposed to look into our hearts, searching ourselves for unconfessed sin and ungodly attitudes, partaking only after we have purged ourselves of them. Though that is not a horrible idea, I don't think that is what Paul has in mind. Secondly, some take this to mean that we must not partake unless we recognize the meaning of the sacrament--that we are partaking spiritually of Christ, thereby being united to the sacrifice pictured by it. We'll get this interpretation later.
I hope that I have fairly represented their views. Before we move any further, let me make a few clarifications. 1) Paul never tells any Christian NOT to partake of the Table, nor does he tell anyone to stop any Christian from partaking. He only admonishes them on how they should be partaking. 2) Paul never once mentions children. They are probably the only ones who are actually partaking in a worthy manner. 3) Paul never mentions the elders. The idea of going before the elders to get the privilege of partaking is not mentioned here, nor is it found anywhere else.
Okay, let's keep going. So, Paul says we should examine ourselves. Let me be clear. I believe that! We should examine ourselves before partaking of the Lord's Table! Just what that means is the point of contention. The traditional Reformed argument goes like this: "You have to examine yourselves to take the Table. Kids can't do that. Therefore, kids can't partake of the Table." That argument is sound enough, as our Baptist brethren would heartily agree. After all, they look at Peter's words from Acts 2 and apply the same logic. "Peter says that we should repent and be baptized. Kids can't repent. Therefore, kids can't be baptized." We Presbyterians, however, believe that, just like with circumcision, the sign of the covenant is to be placed upon all covenant members, including the children of believers (I won't defend that here). We paedocommunionists take that principle to its fullest conclusion, that if the children of believers are to be given the sign of inclusion in the covenant because their birth in a Christian home places them in the covenant, that they should also receive the sign of communion within that covenant.
Credocommunionists counter by saying that the sacraments are different. Why? Well, because 1 Corinthians 11 says so! To be fair, their argument isn't quite that simple, but I have noticed that many Presbyterians use their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 to interpret not only the rest of the Bible's teaching on the sacraments, but also 1 Corinthians 11 itself. That's what we call a circular argument, unwitting as it may be.
Let's take a step back for a moment. What was Paul really talking about in 1 Corinthians 11? Well, the same thing that dominated the rest of the Epistle--Christian unity! Paul opens up by appealing to the Corinthians to bind the divisions that plagued them (1:10). In the second chapter he tells them that such unity is only possible because of our mutual spiritual rebirth. In Chapter 6 he forbids Christians from taking each other to court. In Chapter 12 Paul describes how the Church is analogous to a body with many members. In Chapter 13 he describes how we are tied together by love. In 1 Corinthians 14 how the Church should worship in a respectful and orderly manner. Unity absolutely dominates this book.
Chapter 11 is no different. Paul is absolutely disgusted by the abuse of the Table. What is that abuse? People are being selfish in how the partake. Some are getting drunk, while others are getting nothing. That, in Paul's mind, is exactly the opposite from what the Table signifies. This context is the key to understanding Paul's call to self-examination.
Good Presbyterians are, however, quick to point out that Paul often uses specific situations to make broad declarations. Blogger Devan Meade (he gives a fair treatment of the subject over at The Presbtery Inn, the name of which employs one of the finest pieces of religious word-play that I've ever seen) puts it poignantly:
Not only does my exegesis above point to a different conclusion but even if we grant that the passage is about the divisions in the church, Paul throughout Corinthians is using the specific problems within the Corinthian church to point to greater principles that transcend the specific conflict in Corinth (see Calvin’s Commentary on this chapter for more). You can see headcoverings teaching greater principles of earlier in this chapter. Meat offered to idols becomes an occasion to discuss Christian liberty (chapter 8). He uses questions about marriage to discuss principles of chastity and uses circumcision to teach about keeping the commandments of God (chapter 7). He uses fornication in the church to teach about discipline and purging sin from the community (chapter 5). More general principles are being applied to those specific situations. What Paul is talking about, more generally, is partaking in an unworthy manner, which means this: eating in such a way that you don’t understand that you are partaking of the body and the blood of our Lord.
I would agree that Paul is using this as an opportunity to set forth a broader concept. I would disagree, however, with the principle that Meade finds here. The context does determine how we interpret this passage. The "body" is not the elements of the Table. The body, as in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, is the Church. The call to discern the body is not a call to consider what the bread and wine mean, at least not entirely. The call to discern the body is a call to make sure we are being unselfish at the Table, showing deference to all members of the body. Christ, you see, cares less about the elements of the Table, and more about the people that comprise His body. He is not overly concerned that we will profane His table by eating of bread and wine carelessly. We're not going to ruin his sacrament, after all. He is concerned that we acknowledge and respect those with whom we share an identity and that we recognize the root of the identity. When we partake of the Table without doing so, we deny the reality that we are united by the death of Christ.
Conversely, when we withhold a member of the Church from the Table, we are telling him/her that he/she is not a member of Christ's body. If you are not allowed to commune with Christ, then you aren't a Christian. Christ, you see, welcomes every member of His body to His Table! It's high time we start viewing the Table as a group meal once again. The Lord's Supper isn't just about "me and Jesus." It's about "us and Jesus." Not only is that the reason that children should partake, but it's also the reason that "closed communion" (by that I mean where only members of the church can participate--visitors are not invited to do so) is so counter-intuitive. Anytime we use the Lord's Table to divide Christians (communicant and non-communicant members, anyone?), we're doing it wrong. The Table is Christ's gift to us to remind us that we are united to Him, and, therefore, to one another. That's why using 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold communion is so strange. Paul is emphasizing unity and inclusion throughout his letter, yet we use it to withhold members of His body from His Table.
So, it is my contention, that paedocommunion is an appropriate expression of Covenant Theology. You may disagree with it, and that's fine, but I ask that you respect it for what it is--an attempt to facilitate the communion of every member of Christ's body with their Savior and with each other. I believe that to be the Biblical model.
So, the question remains, is paedocommunion a view held by not-really-that-Reformed-people who are unconfessional (and sort of weird)? Or, is it an Orthodox view held by Reformed brethren who are seeking to practice the Covenant consistently (okay, we are sort of weird)?
The battleground of the issue is undoubtedly 1 Corinthians 11:17ff. If you're not familiar with it, go over to biblehub and catch up. Assuming you've done that, let's proceed. So, Paul says that those who eat in an unworthy manner will bring guilt upon themselves. On this we agree. Specifically he says that those who do so will be "guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord." What does that mean? Well, many Presbyterians have taken this to mean that we will be profaning the sacrament by eating of it without the proper mindset or faith. I don't think that is really what Paul means, though.
Paul, always sure to apply the truths he reveals, offers a remedy to the unworthy partaking. What is that remedy? Self-examination or self-judging. Presbyterians have generally understood this to mean one of two things (or both). Firstly, some take this to mean that we are supposed to look into our hearts, searching ourselves for unconfessed sin and ungodly attitudes, partaking only after we have purged ourselves of them. Though that is not a horrible idea, I don't think that is what Paul has in mind. Secondly, some take this to mean that we must not partake unless we recognize the meaning of the sacrament--that we are partaking spiritually of Christ, thereby being united to the sacrifice pictured by it. We'll get this interpretation later.
I hope that I have fairly represented their views. Before we move any further, let me make a few clarifications. 1) Paul never tells any Christian NOT to partake of the Table, nor does he tell anyone to stop any Christian from partaking. He only admonishes them on how they should be partaking. 2) Paul never once mentions children. They are probably the only ones who are actually partaking in a worthy manner. 3) Paul never mentions the elders. The idea of going before the elders to get the privilege of partaking is not mentioned here, nor is it found anywhere else.
Okay, let's keep going. So, Paul says we should examine ourselves. Let me be clear. I believe that! We should examine ourselves before partaking of the Lord's Table! Just what that means is the point of contention. The traditional Reformed argument goes like this: "You have to examine yourselves to take the Table. Kids can't do that. Therefore, kids can't partake of the Table." That argument is sound enough, as our Baptist brethren would heartily agree. After all, they look at Peter's words from Acts 2 and apply the same logic. "Peter says that we should repent and be baptized. Kids can't repent. Therefore, kids can't be baptized." We Presbyterians, however, believe that, just like with circumcision, the sign of the covenant is to be placed upon all covenant members, including the children of believers (I won't defend that here). We paedocommunionists take that principle to its fullest conclusion, that if the children of believers are to be given the sign of inclusion in the covenant because their birth in a Christian home places them in the covenant, that they should also receive the sign of communion within that covenant.
Credocommunionists counter by saying that the sacraments are different. Why? Well, because 1 Corinthians 11 says so! To be fair, their argument isn't quite that simple, but I have noticed that many Presbyterians use their understanding of 1 Corinthians 11 to interpret not only the rest of the Bible's teaching on the sacraments, but also 1 Corinthians 11 itself. That's what we call a circular argument, unwitting as it may be.
Let's take a step back for a moment. What was Paul really talking about in 1 Corinthians 11? Well, the same thing that dominated the rest of the Epistle--Christian unity! Paul opens up by appealing to the Corinthians to bind the divisions that plagued them (1:10). In the second chapter he tells them that such unity is only possible because of our mutual spiritual rebirth. In Chapter 6 he forbids Christians from taking each other to court. In Chapter 12 Paul describes how the Church is analogous to a body with many members. In Chapter 13 he describes how we are tied together by love. In 1 Corinthians 14 how the Church should worship in a respectful and orderly manner. Unity absolutely dominates this book.
Chapter 11 is no different. Paul is absolutely disgusted by the abuse of the Table. What is that abuse? People are being selfish in how the partake. Some are getting drunk, while others are getting nothing. That, in Paul's mind, is exactly the opposite from what the Table signifies. This context is the key to understanding Paul's call to self-examination.
Good Presbyterians are, however, quick to point out that Paul often uses specific situations to make broad declarations. Blogger Devan Meade (he gives a fair treatment of the subject over at The Presbtery Inn, the name of which employs one of the finest pieces of religious word-play that I've ever seen) puts it poignantly:
Not only does my exegesis above point to a different conclusion but even if we grant that the passage is about the divisions in the church, Paul throughout Corinthians is using the specific problems within the Corinthian church to point to greater principles that transcend the specific conflict in Corinth (see Calvin’s Commentary on this chapter for more). You can see headcoverings teaching greater principles of earlier in this chapter. Meat offered to idols becomes an occasion to discuss Christian liberty (chapter 8). He uses questions about marriage to discuss principles of chastity and uses circumcision to teach about keeping the commandments of God (chapter 7). He uses fornication in the church to teach about discipline and purging sin from the community (chapter 5). More general principles are being applied to those specific situations. What Paul is talking about, more generally, is partaking in an unworthy manner, which means this: eating in such a way that you don’t understand that you are partaking of the body and the blood of our Lord.
I would agree that Paul is using this as an opportunity to set forth a broader concept. I would disagree, however, with the principle that Meade finds here. The context does determine how we interpret this passage. The "body" is not the elements of the Table. The body, as in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, is the Church. The call to discern the body is not a call to consider what the bread and wine mean, at least not entirely. The call to discern the body is a call to make sure we are being unselfish at the Table, showing deference to all members of the body. Christ, you see, cares less about the elements of the Table, and more about the people that comprise His body. He is not overly concerned that we will profane His table by eating of bread and wine carelessly. We're not going to ruin his sacrament, after all. He is concerned that we acknowledge and respect those with whom we share an identity and that we recognize the root of the identity. When we partake of the Table without doing so, we deny the reality that we are united by the death of Christ.
Conversely, when we withhold a member of the Church from the Table, we are telling him/her that he/she is not a member of Christ's body. If you are not allowed to commune with Christ, then you aren't a Christian. Christ, you see, welcomes every member of His body to His Table! It's high time we start viewing the Table as a group meal once again. The Lord's Supper isn't just about "me and Jesus." It's about "us and Jesus." Not only is that the reason that children should partake, but it's also the reason that "closed communion" (by that I mean where only members of the church can participate--visitors are not invited to do so) is so counter-intuitive. Anytime we use the Lord's Table to divide Christians (communicant and non-communicant members, anyone?), we're doing it wrong. The Table is Christ's gift to us to remind us that we are united to Him, and, therefore, to one another. That's why using 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold communion is so strange. Paul is emphasizing unity and inclusion throughout his letter, yet we use it to withhold members of His body from His Table.
So, it is my contention, that paedocommunion is an appropriate expression of Covenant Theology. You may disagree with it, and that's fine, but I ask that you respect it for what it is--an attempt to facilitate the communion of every member of Christ's body with their Savior and with each other. I believe that to be the Biblical model.
I agree, Paul is referring to the Church, not the elements, as the Body; the elements are merely a sign! :)
ReplyDeleteIt's a double-entendre. The elements represent the flesh and blood of Christ, but we are the flesh and blood, too. It's hard to wrap your brain around!
Deletehttp://charlesshank.blogspot.com/2008/03/discerning-body.html
ReplyDelete"Don't keep the body from the body." -Doug Wilson
ReplyDelete